Talk:Regifting/Archive 1

Mathom

The term Mathom was in use prior to Seinfeld using it. It is metioned by J.R.R. Tolkien in his The Lord of the Rings novels which were originally published in the years 1954 and 1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.220.29 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 August 2006

This article never stated that the word "mathom" was uttered or refered to in the Seinfeld episode that mentioned regifting. --83.253.36.136 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of mathom from Tolkien: [1] and [2]. --83.253.36.136 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now when any mentioning of mathom has been removed from this article, shouldn't the redirect from Mathom to this article be removed as well? --83.253.36.136 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RfD for Mathom closed as Delete. --83.253.36.136 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

reference for regifting etiquette?

• I'm not sure the MSN money article qualifies as peer reviewed primary or secondary source for the statment given WP:V/WP:RS/WP:A. Perhaps you could say, more weakly, "MSN Money's MP Dunleavey claims...". Comments? -- Jethero
  • Are this source's sources, (the today show, Moselt Pierce[3], others?), experts on popular ettiquette? -- Jethero^Talk 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the current wording "Several rules of etiquette are proposed in popular media regarding regifting". That seems to accurately represent what we're seeing at the source. -- MisterHand 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I did just recently change it from a more direct statement of 'what the etiquette is' to 'what a piece of popular media says the etiquette is'. I'd still like a more authoritative source (WP:RS) on etiquette regarding regifting. If you go to the main etiquette page, it is itself very poorly sourced in many cases. It seems to me we are making our own judgement as to what is or is not etiquette regarding regifting by choosing which popular media articles to include or not. I still doubt that MSN-Money is an authoritative source for etiquette. Jethero^Talk 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Did find a review[4] of a survey that claims more than 1/2 of people surveyed regift because the gift will be appreciated and more than 1/2 don't find it rude (a.k.a. decietful?). Also, significant number (1/3) do so to save money (a.k.a. resources). Jethero^Talk 04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This article reports on same survery. Jethero^Talk 04:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

a patent on regifting?

• The following is an interesting addition if we can find a reliable second source...?

Last year, one William Dodd obtained a patent on a new regifting technology that lets you regift something before you've even received it. (I'm not making this up!) Soon, that scarf you bought online for Jane could be virtually regifted via e-mail. ("Happy Holidays, Jane -- Vera has sent you this lovely scarf"). Then Jane will either accept it or instantly regift it.[5]

Jethero^Talk 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

articles on regifting for discussion

• Here. Jethero^Talk 04:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Reuse

This article Regifting was proposed to be merged into a section of the reuse page. Discussion is ongoing (slowly) and consensus has not (yet) been reached. The tag was removed from this page by MisterHand. I have added it back here for discussion. Jethero^Talk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• MisterHand, I'm not very familiar with ettiquette regarding mergers. Is a two week limit on discussion typical and/or recommended? I've seen merger banners up for much longer, so I am surprised. Also, May 6 will be two weeks from the last comments I made. I feel this banner has been pulled down prematurely, which will distract from others weighing in on the topic. Would you consider re-instating the banner on this page, please? Jethero^Talk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's what WP:MERGE has to say: "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." I couldn't find anything that gave a time limit on when to take a merge tag down. There are a lot of merge tags that linger for months or years, but that's usually due to a lack of follow-up on the part of the editor who proposed the merge to begin with. -- MisterHand 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Although there was not consensus, many points I tried to raise in the proposal were not addressed, and I beleive the discussion rebuttals were made to the two opposing views and have not yet been answered. Jethero^Talk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• In the discussion it became clear that regifting was related to both reuse and 'gift'. If I reword the proposal to indicate a mention in both of these pages, I beleive that might satisfy the two opposing claims. Jethero^Talk 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, regifting doesn't fit at all with what can currently be read in the Reuse article. That article is about environmental issues, this article is cultural in nature. There are more aspects to regifting than merely reuse. Also, I would argue that, typically, a "regifted" item has never been "used" in the first place. -- MisterHand 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm strongly against merging. If you look through the published sources (I'm just going through some newspapers via Nexus at the moment, it shows me that there are 91 current published articles with regift in the headline and 992 with it mentioned in the body) the word regift has specific social implications that have little to do with re-use and there are many articles available discussing the act of re-gifting Christmas presents since it's popularity in 1995. The fact that in the Seinfeld episode in 1995, the word had negative social implications and a decade later there are many articles which make it a positive act due to the influence of the recycling ethos is worth capturing.

Out of interest you will note a recent press reference to this Wikipedia page:

Talk of the Day. December 25, 2008. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) -- It's Christmas Day, the fifth day of Hanukkah, and the day before Kwanzaa. You probably received your gifts already, or soon will. There's talk on various television news shows, talk shows and other media that because of the economy, many will be regifting their loot this year. According to Wikipedia Regifting is the act of taking a gift that has been received and giving it to somebody else, sometimes in the guise of a new gift. There is even a website regiftable.com to help give you ideas or share your regifting stories. Will you regift anything that you've received this week, and why? Or have you ever regifted anything in the past? If so, share your stories with us. —Ashleyvh (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Regiving

I came across Regiving while Stub-sorting but noticed that it says "Regiving ... also known as Regifting". There seems no difference between the concepts discussed in the two articles, so they should be merged, with redirects from unused titles. PamD (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, on the regiving discussion page I've introduced this topic. I believe there's plenty of latitude to include here an extension of the regifting concept in relation to the concepts of reuse, recycle, and the recent developments of online gift economies but living on it's own just doesn't seem to provide any benefits to Wikipedia (76.254.61.221 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I'd encourage you to go ahead with the merge and then turn regiving into a redirect. -- Horkana (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"regifting" or "regiving" are among the more appalling Americanisms. Can anyone suggest an alternative that isn't so misleading? To openly dispose of an "unwanted gift" - no gentleman would sell a gift - is certainly not a form of gifting. It is mercenary and ungrateful.124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Support for this assertion?

"Regifting has recently become more acceptable when it was adopted by environmentally and budgetary conscience people that encourage the Green Gifting concept."

Is there a study that shows this is true? Ed Gris 18:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Gris (talk • contribs)